Can you bid this grand with confidence

[Codo]

So what do you bid over 1♠-2♥ on AQxxx, KJxx, Jx, xx or do you either not open these or bid a lot of bad 4♥ contracts opposite say xxx, AQxxx, Kx, Qxx where even 3♥ might be too many. And these are far from the worst hands available.

 

Any system that commits me to game on an 8 card fit and 10 opposite 10 can't be sensible.

You rebid 2 ♠ to show a weak hand and bid 3 ♥ over partners rebid, or pass his 3 heart bid if that is his choice.

 

The obvious downside is that 2 ♠ does not promise 6 spades anymore. But the upsides are much higher for most players.

[Fluffy]

not sure about ACOL, but for french standard 2/1 is GF when partner has support in our suit. This is very healthy, I recomend that you try it.

 

No need to toy hidding support, just support and play game.

[Cyberyeti]

So what do you bid over 1♠-2♥ on AQxxx, KJxx, Jx, xx or do you either not open these or bid a lot of bad 4♥ contracts opposite say xxx, AQxxx, Kx, Qxx where even 3♥ might be too many. And these are far from the worst hands available.

 

Any system that commits me to game on an 8 card fit and 10 opposite 10 can't be sensible.

You rebid 2 ♠ to show a weak hand and bid 3 ♥ over partners rebid, or pass his 3 heart bid if that is his choice.

 

The obvious downside is that 2 ♠ does not promise 6 spades anymore. But the upsides are much higher for most players.

What rebid ? 2♠ is not forcing, we're not playing 2/1 so you play 2♠ potentially in a 5-0 fit with a 5-4 heart fit available.

 

An awful lot of UK players do not play a 2/1 even forcing to 2N, I certainly don't, and if I did, I would not be able to open a lot of hands I would like to open as I'll be forced too high on an 11 or 12 count opposite.

 

2♠ never promised 6 as most people in the UK rebid 2♠ on a bad 5134 for example.

[jdonn]

So what do you bid over 1♠-2♥ on AQxxx, KJxx, Jx, xx or do you either not open these or bid a lot of bad 4♥ contracts opposite say xxx, AQxxx, Kx, Qxx where even 3♥ might be too many. And these are far from the worst hands available.

 

Any system that commits me to game on an 8 card fit and 10 opposite 10 can't be sensible.

You rebid 2 ♠ to show a weak hand and bid 3 ♥ over partners rebid, or pass his 3 heart bid if that is his choice.

 

The obvious downside is that 2 ♠ does not promise 6 spades anymore. But the upsides are much higher for most players.

What rebid ? 2♠ is not forcing, we're not playing 2/1 so you play 2♠ potentially in a 5-0 fit with a 5-4 heart fit available.

 

An awful lot of UK players do not play a 2/1 even forcing to 2N, I certainly don't, and if I did, I would not be able to open a lot of hands I would like to open as I'll be forced too high on an 11 or 12 count opposite.

 

2♠ never promised 6 as most people in the UK rebid 2♠ on a bad 5134 for example.

So maybe the lesson for the UK is that more bids should be forcing then! It's like you are asking us to bake cookies and when we tell you our different recipes you say "but in the UK we don't have flower or sugar or butter, and our ovens only go up to 105 degrees, so how else can I make cookies?" Well, you can't.

[Cyberyeti]

So what do you bid over 1♠-2♥ on AQxxx, KJxx, Jx, xx or do you either not open these or bid a lot of bad 4♥ contracts opposite say xxx, AQxxx, Kx, Qxx where even 3♥ might be too many. And these are far from the worst hands available.

 

Any system that commits me to game on an 8 card fit and 10 opposite 10 can't be sensible.

You rebid 2 ♠ to show a weak hand and bid 3 ♥ over partners rebid, or pass his 3 heart bid if that is his choice.

 

The obvious downside is that 2 ♠ does not promise 6 spades anymore. But the upsides are much higher for most players.

What rebid ? 2♠ is not forcing, we're not playing 2/1 so you play 2♠ potentially in a 5-0 fit with a 5-4 heart fit available.

 

An awful lot of UK players do not play a 2/1 even forcing to 2N, I certainly don't, and if I did, I would not be able to open a lot of hands I would like to open as I'll be forced too high on an 11 or 12 count opposite.

 

2♠ never promised 6 as most people in the UK rebid 2♠ on a bad 5134 for example.

So maybe the lesson for the UK is that more bids should be forcing then! It's like you are asking us to bake cookies and when we tell you our different recipes you say "but in the UK we don't have flower or sugar or butter, and our ovens only go up to 105 degrees, so how else can I make cookies?" Well, you can't.

Actually no, it's just people are assuming bids are self evidently forcing when many people don't play them as such.

 

Most systems have their merits, and some hands suit them better than others.

 

This area is one that the system I play doesn't handle desperately well, there are others we can deal with much better than US style 2/1, typically where we can bid naturally at the 2 level and a 2/1 player can't, or where 1N is the right spot, but the 2/1 player has to remove it because partner might have a better hand.

[kenrexford]

Here's a thought.

 

If you have two hands to bid, and you want to know how you might bid them to the ideal spot in the system that you play, maybe (1) tell everyone what system you play and (2) tell everyone what conventions and treatments might have impact.

 

A generalized question of how to bid two hands without any context, and then complaining that people are making assumptions that are not true, without telling people what those assumptions might be, seems rather odd.

 

It is really hard to guess what you play. I still don't know.

[jdonn]

I never said the system you play (whatever that is) is meritless. I said what you have even sort of admitted, that it apparently can't handle these hands. So I guess I don't know what you want from people in that case. If you want to handle these hands, play a different system. If you want to play the system you are playing, you can't handle these hands. We aren't magicians.

 

I still like my analogy. You asked us how to bake cookies, I told you that your oven can't bake cookies, and you replied with "oh yeah well my oven makes better cakes than yours does!" That isn't very productive and still ignores the fact that you are asking us how to make cookies in an oven that can't do so. You seem to be trying to switch the debate from "how do I make cookies in my oven?" to "which of us has the best oven overall?"

[jdonn]

A generalized question of how to bid two hands without any context, and then complaining that people are making assumptions that are not true, without telling people what those assumptions might be, seems rather odd.

He had context. He asked for all our other systems then didn't like when he got them!

 

Anybody have any interesting methods that would be useful here?

[kenrexford]

I never said the system you play (whatever that is) is meritless. I said what you have even sort of admitted, that it apparently can't handle these hands. So I guess I don't know what you want from people in that case. If you want to handle these hands, play a different system. If you want to play the system you are playing, you can't handle these hands. We aren't magicians.

 

I still like my analogy. You asked us how to bake cookies, I told you that your oven can't bake cookies, and you replied with "oh yeah well my oven makes better cakes than yours does!" That isn't very productive and still ignores the fact that you are asking us how to make cookies in an oven that can't do so. You seem to be trying to switch the debate from "how do I make cookies in my oven?" to "which of us has the best oven overall?"

Yes, but there are different kinds of cookies. Some have chocolate chips, or raisins. Some have gooey stuff in the center. Some are rather plain.

 

And, cakes also come in many forms, sometimes with different layers, or maybe even vegetables used.

 

Plus, there are cake doughnuts, and cookie-and-cream ice cream.

[Cyberyeti]

Here's a thought.

 

If you have two hands to bid, and you want to know how you might bid them to the ideal spot in the system that you play, maybe (1) tell everyone what system you play and (2) tell everyone what conventions and treatments might have impact.

 

A generalized question of how to bid two hands without any context, and then complaining that people are making assumptions that are not true, without telling people what those assumptions might be, seems rather odd.

 

It is really hard to guess what you play.  I still don't know.

I was interested in how systems I don't play handle hands like this, which is why I didn't put any constraints on at the start.

 

What irritated me was comments like:

 

If you happen to play a bizarre system where Opener cannot raise hearts with three of them and you end up in some convoluted loop to 7♠, and partner has Kxx in hearts, ditch the system.

 

I wouldn't dream of playing a system that made me bid 1N over 1 of a major on some of the hands 2/1 makes me do so, or being unable to raise partner's 1♣opener because he might only have 2, but criticizing methods played by an awful lot of bridge players is not helpful.

 

Also while it would be self evident to most people that actually play a weak no trump and 2/1 10+, but possibly not if you are used to strong no trump, 2N is 15+ GF over 1♠-2♥, so unless partner raises spades, you will get to raise the hearts next.

 

I play UK acol with a weak no trump, in a somewhat non standard way even for over here, 4 card majors although 1♠ is almost always 5. 2/1 shows a 5 card suit 10+ (or 6 card suit 9+) and does not promise another bid.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

 

I play UK acol with a weak no trump, in a somewhat non standard way even for over here, 4 card majors although 1♠ is almost always 5. 2/1 shows a 5 card suit 10+ (or 6 card suit 9+) and does not promise another bid.

Ok, after having read some of your responses I was going to ask what

system you had in mind.

A better phrasing would have been, that you gave this short description,

asking what add. artificial agreements you could add to find the grand.

 

I will give it a try

 

1S (1) - 2H (2)

2NT (3) - 3S (4)

4C (5) - 4D (6)

4H (7) - 5C (8)

5S (9) - 6H (10)

7S (11)

 

(1) Acol, could be a 4 carder, unless 4333 with +15

(2) forcing for one round, 9+

(3) 15-18, GF, bal. hand, showing a 5 card spade suit,

since 2NT should deny 3 card support for hearts

(4) showing the fit and showing slam interest, with no

slam interest responder can bid 4S, basically demands

cue bids

(5) 4C cue, the first cue should show a fit, alterntive

serious 3NT, showing a good hand in the context of

the bidding, all points are working, and openers hand

has lots of controls,

(6) cue

(7) cue, given that opener is bal. responder sees Kx in heart

(8) First round control, showing a void somewhere (it has to be clubs)

Now it becomes problematic, it is easy to say bid 4NT, because

when p showes 2 KC you are finished, because you will be able

to establish hearts to be able to discard diamonds, at worst it

is heart 3-3 or diamond finesse (assuming they dont lead

diamonds), but if p showes only 1KC, what do you do then?

(9) what else?

(10) Still looking for a possible grand slam (see Last Train convention)

(11) If this is not enough, what is?

 

I would say upto 5S this is still an Acol sequence.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kenrexford]

What irritated me was comments like:

 

If you happen to play a bizarre system where Opener cannot raise hearts with three of them and you end up in some convoluted loop to 7♠, and partner has Kxx in hearts, ditch the system.

 

I wouldn't dream of playing a system that made me bid 1N over 1 of a major on some of the hands 2/1 makes me do so, or being unable to raise partner's 1♣opener because he might only have 2, but criticizing methods played by an awful lot of bridge players is not helpful.

 

Also while it would be self evident to most people that actually play a weak no trump and 2/1 10+, but possibly not if you are used to strong no trump, 2N is 15+ GF over 1♠-2♥, so unless partner raises spades, you will get to raise the hearts next.

 

I play UK acol with a weak no trump, in a somewhat non standard way even for over here, 4 card majors although 1♠ is almost always 5. 2/1 shows a 5 card suit 10+ (or 6 card suit 9+) and does not promise another bid.

If the system you play incorporates a "convoluted loop," and you like that approach, the I apologize for belittling the systemic approach. I'm sure that convoluted loops might work well with some hands.

 

If, on the other hand, your approach does not specifically incorporated convoluted loops, you might think through what I was actually saying, namely that there should probably be some way to unwind matters in some structured approach that is not subject to description as a "convoluted loop."

 

When the response to my wild-ass guess as to what your auction might be (having to guess what system you play, apparently) is something like, "Well, what do you do if your partner has Kxx in hearts?!?!?", I had a difficult time responding to that, as it seemed rather odd to me, with no agreements stated at all at that point, that you would never find out that partner lacks heart support. Had you actually provided some sort of context to explain this, rather than just making what appeared to be a bizarre retort, then perhaps the discussion would have been furthered along in a more constructive manner. Pop-a-mole nonsense begets the mole eventually popping back.

 

So far, I still don't have a clue what you actually play. You describe "self-evident" truths, derived from playing a weak notrump without 2/1 GF. Well, having played K-S for many years, I do have a lot of experience with that approach. If you open 1♠, hear 2♥, and rebid 3♥, you have either 16+ balanced or hearts and unbalanced, either of which shows about a 15-count minimum in support. So, there is no need to have this delayed raise, show shape first approach. This is not all that "self evident."

 

But, if you do have such an approach, the apparently 2NT is GF, shape first. If so, then it seems wildly logical for Responder, having shown 5+ hearts, to have some easy mechanism to get exact shape, like bidding 3♣ next. Opener could then rebid 3♥ with a fit (hopefully) or anything else without a fit, according to some rule. Probably 3♦.

 

The problem, apparently, must be that this checkback causes a problem because Responder cannot ask about pattern without focusing hearts and losing the spade focus. But, then that seems to push the sequence into one where Responder, who spots the problem, sometimes jockeys to get Opener to ask questions.

 

However, unwinding the options over 2NT for your system is impossible to assist for me because I have no idea what the heck y'all do as far as next call options, cuebidding style, RKCB options and alternatives, and the like. You are still keeping this a secret for some reason. It might be that this just ends up being a system hole, a cookie that cannot be baked, if you will. (Copyright, jdonn, BBF deep thoughts and other ramblings, 2009)

[Cyberyeti]

So far, I still don't have a clue what you actually play. You describe "self-evident" truths, derived from playing a weak notrump without 2/1 GF. Well, having played K-S for many years, I do have a lot of experience with that approach. If you open 1♠, hear 2♥, and rebid 3♥, you have either 16+ balanced or hearts and unbalanced, either of which shows about a 15-count minimum in support. So, there is no need to have this delayed raise, show shape first approach. This is not all that "self evident."

 

I don't get this, what do you bid on a 5422 or 5314 10 count if you can't bid 3♥ over 1♠-2♥?

 

For many people including me 2♠ is not forcing.

[gnasher]

There's more to a system than the notrump range. Kaplan-Scheinwold is a very different system from Acol, so a knowledge of one system is very unlikely to tell you how to play the other.

[kenrexford]

So far, I still don't have a clue what you actually play. You describe "self-evident" truths, derived from playing a weak notrump without 2/1 GF. Well, having played K-S for many years, I do have a lot of experience with that approach. If you open 1♠, hear 2♥, and rebid 3♥, you have either 16+ balanced or hearts and unbalanced, either of which shows about a 15-count minimum in support. So, there is no need to have this delayed raise, show shape first approach. This is not all that "self evident."

 

I don't get this, what do you bid on a 5422 or 5314 10 count if you can't bid 3♥ over 1♠-2♥?

 

For many people including me 2♠ is not forcing.

I don't get the question. The inference in the late auction is the ability to know that partner does not have three hearts if he does not raise hearts. The hands you gave are hands where Opener clearly raises hearts.

 

Oh, I think I understand now. You are wanting to know what you bid with these non-1NT opening hands when you have a minimum and therefore do not want to make a non-forcing 2♠ bid but not a GF 3♥ raise?

 

I would raise as a GF raise with these hands. That makes it easy.

 

With the 5314/5341 hands, I presumably have at least 11 HCP. Using old fashioned Goren count for shortness when there is a fit, shortness on the short side, I get +3 for a stiff. So, that gives me a 14-count as my worst possible contribution. If Responder won't bid 2♥ with any old 10-count, which seems right because of the weak notrump issues at play, then we will have at least 25 combined, at least 25 equivalence. If partner does not have spade support, then he has a doubleton value in spades that is not yet counted, as it is a negative feature until I raise hearts. hence, the 26th "point." Thus, there is no 5314/5341 hand where I don't want to force game. If there is a very small possibility of two hands not fitting well enough tpp merit game, that is so rare that I'd rather not screw with system enough to account for it.

 

What about the 5422 hand? On pure count, I have a minimum of 11 with two doubletons, for 13. We have a nice 9-fit, which allows partner's doubleton (or stiff) spade to carry more weight. That also increases his hand to about 11 or 12. But, perhaps more importantly, the nine-fit with a known trick source that is easier to establish again makes game fairly strong as a prospect. So, when this specific instance occurs, I again would consider this a GF situation, more because the specific one-case problem of precisely 5422 and a bare 11-count is not worth contorting system to account for the rare time when 4♥ might be too much.

 

What you seem too be promoting is that 2NT shows the balanced GF (when followed by a heart rebid later), and maybe splinters with the unbalanced GF, all to protect a simple raise as passable on the rare occasion when stopping on a dime at 3♥ makes sense, which seems to occur when Responder has a true piece of junk 2/1 call (bare 10-count) and Opener has an atrocious 5422 opening (or some really awful-looking 5314/5341 where you cannot buy the re-adjustments). That system contortion is, IMO, not worth it. Simply open stronger when you have those patterns OR opt to bid the game and go down once in a while, to save sanity.

 

If you are truly going to open the 5422 or 5314/5341 "10-count," then you are really playing a "light initial action" system. If you couple LIA with a weak notrump, and 2/1 not GF, and 2/1 could be contextual garbage, then there is another possible solution -- Responder bids 2NT with a GF hand and 5+ hearts. If you don't have that solution, then perhaps you end up with this being an impossible hand to bid because you have sacrificed slam bidding for the cause of LIA and LI2/1R. In that event, chalk up the bad score and move on.

[Cyberyeti]

Partner and I tend to open almost any unbalanced rule of 19 (2 longest suits + points >= 19) hand that doesn't have a good reason not to, so we'd routinely open KQ10xx, KQxx, xx, xx although not x, AKJx, xxxxx, Qxx where we'd have to open 1♦ and rebid 2♦ and potentially bury the ♥ suit over 1♠ or a hand with honours in the short suits.

 

This is considered the lightest style of "normal" 1 opener in the UK. We need to do this as our weak 2s would be considered positively indecent in the US and we don't want a gap between our 1s and 2s.

 

I'm in a small minority in that I play the 2N rebid as game forcing and not necessarily balanced, where partner makes the cheapest sensible bid over it. This sorts out a lot of hands, and offers a lot of differentiation in forcing auctions where you have two ways of making a bid, directly or via 2N, but where partner raises a major over 2N can be slightly awkward as in this sequence.

 

That said, as gnasher said in presenting his sequence, you can get there over a 2♥ response, but I wouldn't dream of responding 2♥ in the first place with a fairly poor heart suit, a good hand and 5 card support. With a better heart suit and that spade fit, I'd respond 3♥, without a void or a good suit, I'd respond 2N (value raise to 3 or better, unlimited), with the void I show it immediately.